CryTek Comments on Shader 3.0 + Patch 2

[Gorgon]

In an effort to display the power of the Pixel Shader 3.0 feature supported in its new GeForce 6800 series graphics cards, NVIDIA asked the makers of the popular title FarCry to showcase some of their technology. With the GeForce 6800 series being officially launched at a party in San Francisco, both NVIDIA and Crytek agreed to show attendees how FarCry would look with Shader 3.0 implemented. Those who attended the launch party were shown some image comparisons which were intended to illustrate the image quality enhancements Shader 3.0 provided over current technology.

read more on:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=36



Patch 2 (v1.2) change log:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=452106891&m=540100183

Before I list the changes, I wanted to include a few caveats. For one, please keep in mind that the following list of changes is subject to change. This is not necessarily the final list -- some new fixes may end up being included, and some changes listed may not end up in the patch. However, since I believe you all would prefer *some* information to *none*, I am posting this tentative list. The second caveat is that the release date is not final. The patch is going into testing now, and if all goes well, it will be released soon.

check the above link

 

[Moto]

Lol, the supposed PS 2.0 shaders on the left are being shown on the lowest settings and actually, they are PS1.1. Damn, nVidia will do anything to make the 6800U look good and pimp their PS 3.0 crap.

Just look at the image quality on the second set (the left one) vs. the one on the right. I have a GeForce 5600 and my Far cry is at high settings and looks nearly the same as the PS 3.0 shots. That is dumb that they would make PS2.0 look so bad compared to PS3.0. That is a lie, PS2.0 can look nearly as good when it ACTUALLY HAS THE SETTINGS TURNED UP!

 

[Death.Trap]

Perhaps the one with the PS 3.0 patch has all its settings on low as well?

 

[Letters]

Wow that's messed up... haha... Moto-x_Pat is right... the one on the left has textures at low and water at low for sure... no one's water looks that crappy unless you can just barely run the damn game...

Death.Trap: No, I really doubt that's the case.

 

[Death.Trap]

The review says that they were using PS 1.x vs PS 2.0 and PS 3.0.
Apparently the current version of PS 3.0 (at least for far cry) doesn't have much of a visual advantage over it's lesser counterpart. It is mainly for performance improvements.

 

[Moto]

In response to deathtrap:

Nope.

The screenshot on the right is as high as the settings go on FC. I don't think there is complex lighting and bump mapping on the lowest settings. The water isn't clear and has no reflective and refractive properties on lowest settings.

If you use old shader technology and turn the settings all the way down, that is what you will get. (the shot on the left)

NVidia is trying to screw everyone out of their money by making their PS 3.0 6800 Ultra look more amazing than it really is. I was thinking about getting the 6800, but I am for sure getting the ATI X800 now.

You don't see ATI trying to lie to their customers. They tell it to us straight. They have even said that the X800s won't have Shader3.0. If ATI isn't using them, then it isn't a big deal anyway. ATI is the top of the line graphics card. They don't need to trick their customers into thinking that they have an amazing godlike video card.

 

[Death.Trap]

Well, PS 3.0 is more advanced then PS 2.0. From what I understand alot of it just hasn't been implemented yet.

 

[MultiVaC]

What a load of crap. It's clear that they made the PS2.0 shots look worse. They even removed most of the detail. PS3.0 doesn't magically give that Buddha statue those cracks and stuff, the difference is in the amount of normal mapping.

Edit: I mean the comparison shots are a load of crap, I wasn't referring to anyone's post.

 

[Death.Trap]

No no no.


The screenshots on the LEFT are of PS 1.x

The screenshots on the RIGHT are of PS 3.0/ 2.0

 

[Moto]

Well, PS 3.0 is more advanced then PS 2.0. From what I understand alot of it just hasn't been implemented yet.

From what I hear, there is barely a difference between the two. Nvidia just wants their graphics card to look amazing and magical so that computer-illiterate people will say "Yeehaw, Clem. Look at that thar new nvidia graphics thangy. Hot damn, I gotta get me one of them."

I won't be buying things from them if they have to lie to make things look better than they really are. Honestly, I am disappointed with my current Nvidia POS, so this just gives me more of a reason to stay away from them.

How stupid do they think we are anyway? I mean, most of us have Far Cry and we all want our settings to be at max with decent FPS. Most of us understand how games work and what framerates and textures are. We aren't stupid and we don't fall for tricks like this. They should know that by now.

 

[AH_Viper]

Prety much everythign you need to know that is not published by nVidia

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=36&type=expert

 

[Zerox]

Without a PS3 card then developers wouldn't be able to make games with PS3, but thanks to Nvidia now they can.

 

[mrchimp]

No no no.


The screenshots on the LEFT are of PS 1.x

The screenshots on the RIGHT are of PS 3.0/ 2.0

Actually the shots on the LEFT are fixed T&L

and the shots on the RIGHT are PS1.1/3.0, PS2.0/3.0 are only used for lighting apparantly and what they mean by lighting I'm not entirely sure, could just be HDR, could be the lighting on every surface.

 

[Sulkdodds]

On the subject of the patch...did the first patch fix the 'ranged' attack of the Trigens where they'd slash two metres away from you and still hurt you?

 

[crabcakes66]

Without a PS3 card then developers wouldn't be able to make games with PS3, but thanks to Nvidia now they can.

That is beside the point....... :|


I belive this is about nvidia's as usaul misleading marketing.